The Wall Street Journal editorial board, those whippersnappers, wondered Thursday morning whether Senator and 2016 candidate Rand Paul (R-KY) was really running for the GOP nomination, given his criticism yesterday on Morning Joe of a decade-plus of his party’s foreign policy.
The WSJ thought Paul’s claim that GOP hawks had “created ISIS” so absurd they gave the framing right back to Paul:
“Well, okay, our headline goes too far,” the board wrote. “But the claim is about as plausible as Rand Paul’s outburst that Republican internationalists like Lindsey Graham and John McCain are responsible for the rise of the Islamic State.”
The Board first noted that Paul’s argument won’t get him elected:
Speaking of gall, and a word of political advice, an aide might want to remind Senator Paul which party’s nomination he is seeking. Republicans who begin their campaigns assailing other Republicans rarely succeed—especially when the accusation is culpability for a would-be caliphate that uses executions, slavery, extortion, rape and general terror to enforce oppression in the Middle East and North Africa, and whose ideology inspires jihadists world-wide.
The Board then repeated the standard conservative argument that Bush won the war and Obama squandered the peace, the exact revisionism Paul was arguing against. They concluded:
Mr. Paul seems to think he can win the GOP nomination on an anti-interventionist platform, though we think he’d be better off focusing on his domestic agenda. But if he wants to run as an Obama Republican on foreign policy, he shouldn’t also adopt the Obama trick of rewriting history. It reflects poorly on his judgment as a potential Commander in Chief.
[h/t Wall Street Journal]
[Image via screengrab]
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]